Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ALEX
Estcrh, you may call every sword a Saif... and you'll be right. But please do not manipulate and misrepresent my words! I did not say that Artzi was wrong, and I did not say that Saif is always straight. I said it is (usually) straight. look, out of all Saifs pictured only a few have curved shamshir-like blades, most are almost straight, very slightly curved, this is what I meant by straigh(ish), and this may be wrong term. and also that there's a mistake in Stone's description, even though he stated that Saif is an Arab sword (not Indian), the mistake is in Indian and Javan description of 2 Arab swords. Based on it, you concluded that Saif: "can be Indian in origin" (I quote your own words). I am afraid I cannot help if you need more proof and evidences of said.
|
Let me enter in the "dance", I vote for Alex! But I would like to add something:
Saif is the Arabic word for sword, no more. It can be - and not should be - apply to Arabic swords.
Another point a kilij has not necessary a yelman. It's a sword in Turkish, point.
I have a kilij with no yelman.
I never saw a tulwar with an Ottoman hilt. But I'm sure that's exist somewhere, true or fake... I have seen a lot of strange combinations since the lats years...
And again the origin of the blade doesn't define a sword.
An Arabian sword with a Persian blade is an Arabian sword, called sometimes saif sometimes Arabian shamshir by collectors...
Kubur